Is the Berkshire Focus Fund (BFOCX) a good mutual fund choice right now?

IIf you are looking for the Mutual Fund Equity Report fund category, a potential startup might be Berkshire Focus Fund (BFOCX). BFOCX carries a Zacks mutual fund ranking of 3 (Hold), which is based on nine predictor factors such as size, cost and past performance.

Fund/manager history

Berkshire is responsible for BFOCX and the company is based in Mikwaukee, WI. Berkshire Focus Fund debuted in July 1997, and since then BFOCX has accumulated approximately $748.15 million in assets, according to the most recent date available. The current fund manager, Malcolm R. Fobes III, has been in charge of the fund since July 1997.

Performance

Investors are naturally looking for high performance funds. This fund has a 5-year annualized total return of 33.42% and ranks in the top third of its peers in the category. Investors who prefer to analyze shorter time frames should look at its 3-year annualized total return of 38.67%, which puts it in the top third over this period.

When looking at a fund’s performance, it’s also important to note the standard deviation of returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. Compared to the category average of 22.06%, the standard deviation of BFOCX over the last three years is 26.65%. Over the last 5 years, the standard deviation of the fund is 24.89% against a category average of 20.26%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.

Risk factors

The fund has a 5-year beta of 1.13, so investors should note that it is hypothetically more volatile than the market as a whole. Another factor to consider is alpha, as it reflects a portfolio’s performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, in this case the S&P 500. Over the past 5 years, the fund has a positive alpha of 12.3. This means that the managers of this portfolio are adept at choosing securities that generate returns superior to those of the benchmark index.

Expenses

For investors, it is essential to take a closer look at cost-related metrics, as costs are increasingly important for mutual fund investments. Competition is heating up in this space, and a lower cost product will likely outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, all things being equal. In terms of fees, BFOCX is a no-fee fund. It has a spend rate of 1.90% compared to the category average of 0.99%. BFOCX is actually more expensive than its peers when considering factors like cost.

Although the minimum initial investment for the product is $5,000, investors should also note that each subsequent investment must be at least $500.

Conclusion

Overall, Berkshire Focus Fund (BFOCX) has a neutral rating from Zacks Mutual Fund, and in conjunction with its relatively strong performance, medium downside risk and higher fees, this fund currently looks like a somewhat average choice. for investors.

For more information on this product or to compare it to other mutual funds in the Mutual Fund Stock Report, go to www.zacks.com/funds/mutual-funds for more information. information. Zacks provides a full suite of tools to help you analyze your portfolio – funds and stocks – in the most efficient way possible.

Zacks names ‘only one best choice for doubling up’

From thousands of stocks, 5 Zacks experts have each picked their favorite to skyrocket by +100% or more in the coming months. Of these 5, Research Director Sheraz Mian selects one to have the most explosive advantage of all.

As one investor put it, “curing and preventing hundreds of diseases…what should this market be worth?” This company could rival or surpass other recent Zacks stocks that are expected to double, such as Boston Beer Company which jumped +143.0% in just over 9 months and NVIDIA which jumped +175.9% in a year.

Free: See our best stock and our 4 finalists >>

Click to get this free report

Get Your Free (BFOCX): Fund Analysis Report

To read this article on Zacks.com, click here.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Dolores W. Simon